(JWR) ---- (http://www.jewishworldreview.com)
I’VE WATCHED A NUMBER OF TALK SHOWS about the Littleton massacre this
past week and the hysteria is just appalling. This isn’t to minimize the
tragedy: Any time 15 people are killed in an inexplicable fit of
violence it’s a newsworthy event.

But the glut of coverage is
astonishing.

On April 29, CNN devoted four hours of live airtime to the
funeral of Isaiah Shoels; that the victim was black had, I’m sure, no
impact on the network’s strange programming decision. It’s as if the war
in Yugoslavia is less important because it’s in Europe; Americans have
such a short attention span that they don’t realize that the spate of
high school murders in the last two years isn’t particularly unique. In
1966 Charles Whitman killed 16 people at the University of Texas and it
didn’t cause this kind of commotion. Of course it made the cover of Life
and other newsmagazines, but not every reporter with a plane ticket was
assigned to interview every single survivor, onlooker or relative of a
victim.

According to the April 30 Washington Post, Clinton has plans to assemble
a “group of education and entertainment industry leaders at the White
House next month to discuss the role of the media in promoting
violence.” I’m sure campaign contributions won’t be on the agenda.

Maureen Dowd, perhaps regaining her equilibrium after receiving the
Pulitzer, nailed Clinton and his gang in a April 28 Times column: “After
Bill Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom to Hollywood buddies, after
Hillary became a Miramax flak, after Al Gore and Jeffrey Katzenberg
hugged, after Tipper soft-pedaled her crusade to raise PG kids in an
X-rated society for a decade after Hollywood honchos told her husband it
would hurt fund-raising, they should spare us their opportunistic
outrage. It’s fine to like ‘The Matrix.’ But you should not be
entertained and financed by the same culture that you demonize and
trash.”

Breslin

Jimmy Breslin, still occasionally biting in his dotage, slammed Clinton
in Newsday on May 2. First he blasted Hillary Clinton’s foray into New
York, playing principal at public schools and cuddling with children.

Breslin, reacting to the NATO missile that killed upwards of 25
civilians north of Kosovo, was withering in his contempt: “Perhaps
[Hillary Clinton] ought to go over there and pick up the pieces of kids
killed by the war she and her husband are running. If you look at her
lovely wave when she comes here to campaign next, you’ll notice the
hands are covered with blood.” He then turned his attention to Clinton’s
bogus conference described above: “For a fake and a fraud like Clinton,
this is perfect. Blame a movie or video game. Stand up and say nothing
and say it fast and with love. You pay him to help people make sense out
of the moment, and he spreads confusion.”

Naturally, Republican self-proclaimed saint William Bennett and Democrat
Joseph Lieberman (the coward who chastised Clinton last fall but then
voted for his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial) are joining the
drumbeaters. Bennett, singing the same hymn again, is confident in the
“growing pressure on the entertainment industry to take responsibility”
for its culpability in the decline of American culture. Give me
strength. I doubt Paramount, the company that produced Mel Gibson’s
Payback, will hand back its profits for a pat on the head from the likes
of Clinton, Bennett and Lieberman.

In a pitch for his quixotic White House bid, Buchanan said last week:
“It is profoundly regrettable that the President has chosen to exploit
the horrific premeditated massacre at Littleton to, once again,
scapegoat sportsmen, hunters and [other] law-abiding Americans who use
guns for pleasure or personal and family safety. At a time when America
desperately needs to hear an authentic voice of moral authority from the
White House, the office is regrettably occupied by a draft dodger in the
cultural war for the soul of America.”

Buchanan

I don’t particularly disagree with the gist of Buchanan’s statement, but
it would carry more weight if he weren’t running for president and had
served in the military himself.

Ceci Connolly reported in The Washington Post on April 29 that Gore held
town meetings in Iowa (what, is there a key caucus coming up in that
state?) and was, according to his adviser Robert Squier, “in such
physical and emotional contact with these victims in Littleton, it
powerfully affected him.” And this is where the stomach turns: “At a
Victorian-era home perched on the bluffs of Dubuque, Gore recounted a
private moment he shared with one parent in Littleton last Sunday. As
the two hugged, the parent whispered: ‘You’ve got to tell me that these
children did not die in vain. We have got to make changes; promise me
that you will.’ ‘And I said, “I promise.”’” To the crowd, Gore
continued, “I ask you all to join in making that promise come true
because, if we all act together, we can; there is absolutely no question
in mind.”

Goodman

Ellen Goodman, the tiresome quasifeminist who’s unaccountably paid by
The Boston Globe to spin out two thumbsucker columns a week, offered
this stunning insight on April 27: “We need fewer guns and more adults.
We need parents to be brave and the people who make money and fun out of
violence to be shunned with deep, abiding shame.” But Ellen, how would
Teddy Kennedy and his son Patrick get elected without the Hollywood and
New York corporate money that funds their elections? The Kennedy fortune
isn’t what it once was, after all.

I do agree, however, with Goodman’s May 2 comments about the rush to
judgment on the killers’ parents. While Coloradans, and William Bennett,
are ready to string them up, Goodman writes, after explaining that Dylan
Klebold’s father had gone with his son to place a deposit on a college
dorm room, and Eric Harris told his family that he planned to enlist in
the Marines, “Before we prosecute parents for the sins of their
children, I have a question. Tell me what punishment the law can
administer that’s greater than a life sentence of pain for families who
will forever ask themselves ‘Why?’”

The Boston Herald’s Jack Williams wrote in an April 30 column:
“Hollywood hides behind the First Amendment, saying this video trash is
a freedom of expression; artistic creativity. Nonsense! If we start
boycotting this dehumanizing drivel and the studios lose money on a
film, I assure you we’ll see an end to this filth. To do less is to
allow the merchants of pain to dominate our children. It’s time we fight
back.”

Is Williams speaking from a soapbox on Mars? Americans love violent and
sex-drenched movies; if they didn’t, the film studios would’ve stopped
producing them long ago. There will be no boycott: This is all pious and
empty jabbering that’ll be forgotten three weeks from now, when the next
Bruce Willis shoot-’em-up is the highest grossing film for the week.

Even Liz Smith, not content to document the latest eyelifts and butt
tucks in Hollywood, as well as shilling for whatever magazine is paying
her at the moment, felt compelled to inject her jest-thinkin’-out-loud
opinion. Last Friday, she wrote: “I think schools should equip
themselves not only with metal detectors and armed guards, but with a
full competent staff of psychiatric guidance counselors.
Teens—secretive, in perpetual emotional turmoil—need attention. And,
attention must be paid!”

Since when are all teenagers in “perpetual emotional turmoil”? Maybe
that’s the problem: the fountain of youth beckons elderly hacks like Liz
and they get light in the head. Most teenagers are healthy, alert and
socially adjusted. You get a few nutcases and society is turned upside
down. This sudden outburst of ministry is out of control. Thanks a lot,
CNN.

Geraldo

In addition, now more and more networks, not just ABC, are touting the
high viewership they’ve experienced in the past week. It’s absolutely
irresponsible the amount of attention Littleton has received in the
quest for ratings: You want to talk copycat killings? Blame Rosie
O’Donnell, Geraldo, Capital Gang and Hardball. As Clinton and his
sycophants (why does Lanny Davis always come to mind when that word is
used?) said so many times last year, “It’s time to move on.”

Tattoos and Marilyn Manson aside, there are some basic problems with
public schools that have nothing to do with metal detectors. The single
biggest hurdle is that today’s teachers aren’t very bright and don’t
provide a decent education. That issue is a political football, like
challenging the NRA, that politicians won’t touch: Nobody, even
Republicans, wants to tangle with the American Federation of Teachers.

This is another reason that unions stink: You can’t get rid of most of
these boobs, even if half of them can’t locate Wales on a map. Misfits
in the schools? Sure, but one way these maladjusted kids were once
brought out of a funk was by an individual teacher taking the time and
instilling the thirst for knowledge. I doubt that happens much anymore.

And then there was the predictable Howard Stern revolt. After the
Columbine shootings Stern made the following off-hand comment: “There
were some really good-looking girls running out with their hands over
their heads. Did those kids [the perps] try to have sex with any of the
good-looking girls? They didn’t even do that? At least if you’re going
kill yourself and kill all the kids, why wouldn’t you have some sex?” I
didn’t hear this segment, but I’m sure sidekick Robin Quivers said
something like, “Oh Howard, there you go again!” while Fred Norris
played some tasteless sound effects in the background.

That’s Stern.

And
if you don’t like him by now, just turn the radio dial, just as I do
when Rudy Giuliani pollutes WABC’s airwaves every Friday morning.

Dusty

But no. Yahoo columnist Dusty Saunders of the Rocky Mountain News, stuck
in a dead-end job on a dead-end tabloid in a dead-end city, raced to his
computer to grab some fame of his own. Saunders wrote with his two
thumbs: “Stern is a foul-mouthed, unfeeling slob who has carved out a
career based on his callous insensitivity to his fellow humans.” He then
called on the local radio station, KXPK-FM, to cancel his syndicated
show in Denver. “If [KXPK] were really serious about ‘putting their
arms’ around the community, Howard Stern would be off the air.
Obviously, that’s not going to happen. Think broadcasting bottom line.”

Think salary envy, Dusty.

The Rocky Mountain News editorialized: “Let Howard Stern make his
millions in other broadcast markets. He does not belong in Denver.” The
Colorado House of Representatives, not to be outdone in a grab at
constituent sympathy, voted 54-7, according to the April 28 Washington
Post, “for a resolution asking that Stern be taken off the air in Denver
and that the station manager apologize.” What? I’ve lived in Denver, and
it’s true the air is thin, but you’d think the members of Colorado’s
House would’ve heard of the First Amendment. There’re those ill-equipped
teachers skipping work again.

The Boston Globe’s John Ellis, a columnist whose views are close to mine
on most subjects, was aghast at Stern’s shtick. On May 1 he wrote: “The
fact that Stern expressed no remorse and tendered no apology was hardly
surprising. He has made a career of bad taste and offensive behavior...
What was surprising was that not one person from CBS said or did
anything to rebuke or even reprimand Stern.” Actually, as reported in
the April 28 New York Post, Stern did offer an explanation of his
Columbine routine. According to John Mainelli, he said, “I had zero
intent to make fun of the situation. I’ve spent five days and 25 hours
[on the air] trying to understand why it happened. I’ve got three kids
in school. There isn’t a person on the planet who isn’t freaked out by
this.”

But again, criticize Stern’s employers all you want; boycott their
programming, but don’t expect them to muzzle a cash cow. In the unlikely
event that Stern was fired over Littleton, he’d be hired by a competitor
within 24 hours, probably by some GM who’s raising a stink about him
now.

Stern

I applaud Newsday’s Paul Vitello for a more reasoned response to the
Stern controversy. In his April 29 column, Vitello wrote: “Personally, I
learned more listening to Howard Stern, the radio disc jockey who is
being criticized for saying crude and inhumane things on his show the
day after the massacre... It was a meaningless comment from a man famous
as one of the nation’s greatest purveyors of meaninglessness. But in the
midst of our phony national search for meaning, it seems about as good
as any insight we’ll get.”

Start Talking, Shrub

While most of the media attention paid to presidential politics has
focused on Bill Bradley’s surprising, if ultimately doomed, challenge to
Al Gore, the George W. Bush backlash has begun with gusto. Part of it
stems from the fact that he’s all but coronated as the 2000 GOP nominee
and is raising money so fast that even Steve Forbes has to take notice.
More significantly, however, have been Bush’s own missteps—not gaffes—an
eager Beltway pundit pack is ready to pounce on. Bush, who’s
consistently said he won’t start campaigning until the Texas legislature
adjourns in June, is nonetheless drawing criticism for not making
appearances in Iowa and New Hampshire.

This is silly: Take the man at
his word. Just because also-rans like Lamar Alexander, Dan Quayle, Gary
Bauer and John Kasich are toting their sleeping bags in those states,
ravishing attention upon the locals, it isn’t necessary for Bush to do
the same quite yet.

Bush

I find Bush’s slow reaction on the crises of the day more troubling. At
this point, after organizing a huge staff and crew of advisers, he
should’ve issued rapid-fire statements on the war in Yugoslavia and the
Columbine shootings. And not waffled. Also, after an April 19 New York
Times column by William Safire about Bush’s foreign policy views, a
piece that was intended to trap Bush (Safire has never liked the
family), the Governor said he expected to be the Republican nominee and
then President of the United States. That was a bold declaration.

Unfortunately, he then backed away from it, saying he still hadn’t
officially announced his candidacy, and “misquoted myself” in his
comments to Safire. I certainly hope that fire alarms rang in the Austin
war room after that fiasco.

Despite all this, it’ll take an unforeseeable disaster to derail the
Bush campaign. I’ve talked to many Democrats in the last several weeks
and all they can muster against the Texan is the possibility that some
“bimbo eruption” will torpedo him during the fall. This is laughable:

If, in fact, Bush has lied and hasn’t been faithful to his wife, as he’s
repeatedly said, then he’ll be drummed out of the race; deservedly so,
if only for pulling a Gary Hart type of challenge. But those who know
Bush well say he’s got nothing to hide. As for the alleged nude dancing
on a bar while in college, dabbling in drugs in his 20s, too much
drinking at the same time, so what? Bill Clinton has inoculated all
candidates from ancient shenanigans, John McCain included.

This wishful
thinking that a Bush bombshell about his personal life will surface is a
sign that the level of panic in the Gore camp is approaching the red
zone. Count on a major reorganization in his campaign apparatus soon.

Roll Call’s Stuart Rothenberg wrote a prescient column on April 12 that
was most likely dismissed by the conventional wisdom slaves who think
they’ve seen it all.

Rothenberg suggested that the 2000 campaign would
be similar to that of 1960, when Sen. John F. Kennedy challenged sitting
Vice President Richard Nixon. The parallels are there: The country today
is desperate for a change from the present administration; it’s Gore’s
bad luck that he’s associated with such a moral reprobate such as Bill
Clinton.

If Bush’s campaign is rolled out as advertised, with a strong
and virtuous leader ready to take over not just the Republican Party but
guide the country into a more sane social environment, it will be a
landmark election. Before you start with the nonsense that George W.
Bush is no JFK, just remember that Kennedy, in 1959, wasn’t either. He
was an undistinguished senator who happened to be ambitious, as well as
under the thumb of a fabulously wealthy and influential father. He only
became “JFK” after he defeated Nixon in an extremely close, and some say
crooked, election. The myth of Camelot wasn’t even romanticized until
after his assassination.

Writing in the April 20 Wall Street Journal, Dorothy Rabinowitz
criticized Bush for his tepid comments on the events of last year:
Clinton’s parade of lies and scandals that should’ve ended his
presidency. At the time the impeachment hearings were gearing up, Bush
didn’t want to touch the issue, saying only that Clinton’s actions were
“embarrassing” and gave him pause to even pursue the White House when
Washington seemed like such a cesspool. Rabinowitz, like most Journal
editorial board members, I suspect, doesn’t think Bush has the fortitude
to make a great president.

McCain

In any event, she wrote: “It may be, of course, that George W. Bush will
in time find his tongue and speak on these matters. Or he may not. If
not—if this frontrunner of the moment outruns John McCain and all other
contenders for the nomination—the nation will confront, it would seem, a
Democratic candidate, the vice president, whose view it is that William
J. Clinton ranks as one of the greatest presidents of our history. In
the Republican corner, we will have a candidate whose response to the
first impeachment of a president in 130 years is that it was good to get
it off the TV screens. What a duel of titans that promises to be.”

That’s a dire assessment of Bush that I’m convinced will prove
inaccurate. It’s true that he’s erred on the side of caution so far,
perhaps too reluctant to make a statement that will immediately
backfire, but there are many months before the campaign really begins.
When Bush frees himself from his self-imposed exile in Austin, I think
he’ll be ready to claim the mantle of putative Republican leader—with
minnows like Denny Hastert and Trent Lott in charge right now, that
won’t be a tall order—and put forth a bold, conservative agenda for the
country.

JWR contributor "Mugger" -- aka Russ Smith -- is the editor-in-chief and publisher of New York Press. Send your comments to him by clicking here.

04/30/99: John John: I’ll Moonlight, Too04/28/99: T.J. Walker’s The Man!: A Former Clinton Disciple Repents04/23/99: Baseball and Politics04/21/99: Sharpton’s Nostalgia Trip Is a Bust: The Backlash Is Immediate04/16/99: Notes From A Baltimore Hick:
Pressing My Nose Against the Window 04/14/99: The Bush JugGoreNaut Continues; Send Sharpton to A Rwanda Fat Farm04/09/99: John McCain’s Moment04/07/99:The Media Flips: It’s No Longer "Just About Sex"04/05/99: The Gore Republic Gets Dressed Up. So What?03/29/99:Louder Than Bombs: Jetlag and English Manners03/26/99: Hollywood’s Horror Show03/24/99: Black Ops Mark Vietnam War, Class War & the POW/MIA Issue03/19/99: The Wealthy Survivor03/17/99: Clinton’s a Broken Man: The GOP’s Huge Opportunity03/12/99: Like Father, Like Son: New Hampshire in Another Era03/11/99: Who is Dorothy Rabinowitz? 03/10/99: It’s George W.’s to Lose02/26/99: Springsteen Ain’t No Chopped Liver; Vanity Press Musings03/05/99:
This Must Be the New World:
The Mainstream Is Left Behind02/26/99: Hillary, Juanita & Rudy Kazootie; First Baker, then Rich and Soon Lewis02/24/99: The New Yorker Takes the Local:
Mister Hertzberg Strikes Out; A Search for the Clemens Upside 02/19/99: The Howell Raines Conspiracy02/17/99: History Lessons: An Immigrant’s Advice02/12/99:The Man Who Owns the World02/10/99:The Impeachment Trial Splatters: Lindsey Graham Emerges a Hero02/05/99: A Slight Stumble for Bush01/29/99: Rich Is Back in the Tank01/29/99: Not So Fast, Mr. & Mrs. Pundit01/27/99:This Is Not America:
Clinton’s Set to Walk and Party On, Suckers01/25/99:Sniffles and High Fever: Kids Say the Darndest Things01/20/99: Whole Lott(a) Waffling Goin' On01/14/99: Senator Hillary Rodham in 2000:
The First Step Back to the Oval Office01/08/99: Drudge Is the Hero01/06/99 : MUGGER & the Martians12/30/98 : Last Licks of ’98:
Some Heroes, Several Villains & Many Idiots12/17/98 : Boy Mugger's obsession12/11/98: Irving’s the King Wolf12/09/98: What do Matt Drudge and Tom Hanks have in common?11/26/98: Starr’s Magnificent Moment11/18/98: Who could have imagined!? 11/11/98: Send Dowd Down to the Minors11/05/98:
Feeding Gore to
a shark named Bush10/30/98: "Pope" Jann and his rappers speak ---it's time for fun again10/28/98: Lowered expectations, but the GOP holds the cards10/23/98: Speaking from Zabar’s: Michael Moore!10/21/98: Bubba redux?
His uptick won't last10/16/98: Gore for President: The Bread Lines Are Starting to Form